TEJAL SHETH Vs. TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal, by the Complainant in Complaint Cases No. 84 and 85 of 2015, is directed against a common order dated 09.12.2015, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Mumbai (for short "the State Commission"). By the impugned order, the State Commission has not allowed one Mr. Antubhai Sheth to represent the said Complainant on the ground that after the enforcement of Consumer Protection (Procedure for Regulation of Allowing Appearance of Agents or Representatives or Non-Advocates or Voluntary Organisations before the Consumer Forum) Regulations, 2014, nobody can be allowed to appear for a complainant on regular basis without accreditation under the said Regulations. The State Commission has held that since the said Mr. Antubhai Sheth did not have accreditation after September, 2016, he could not be allowed to represent the afore-stated Complainant.

(2.) Aggrieved by the said direction, the Complainant is before us.

(3.) During the pendency of this Appeal, an Office Order dated 17.12.2016, issued by the State Commission, was placed before us. In the said order, it is stated that on the direction of the Central Government, an Accreditation Committee was formed by the State Government, which interviewed the candidates interested in getting accreditation for putting-forth the cases before the District Forums and the State Commission. As per the recommendations of the said Committee, a number of candidates were found eligible for being accredited under the aforesaid Regulations. Mr. Anant Rai K. Sheth, also known as Antubhai Sheth, is one of the selected candidates. Since the said Office Order was valid for a period of one year, another Office Order dated 06.05.2017 was issued by the State Commission. The penultimate paragraph of the said Office Order reads as follows: